Come on, how likely is it that people who have dedicated their lives to archeology and linguistics are all deluded and you, who is an apparent outsider, just happen to see what’s obviously the correct interpretation?
This article skips gently over what was a more than 40 years of denial and academic exclusion of people advocating (with evidence) for arrivals earlier than Clovis.
There is something about human intellect, that seems to repeat this pattern time and time again, of those with an established belief fighting tooth and nail against evidence that they are wrong.
And to add to this - there is no particular incentive to get historical facts right, there might be disincentives from espousing politically unpalatable parts of history and there are incentives for the best and brightest to be doing something other than researching history.
Historians are probably reporting best-available information, but there is no special reason to believe they are right. Like economists a historian is best used as a living catalogue who can point you to examples where an idea has been tried before.
I'd say what there is, is a clear tendency in scientific circles to change views established by strong evidence (or absence of evidence) only in the face of overwhelming evidence.
That, and a clear tendency in outsiders, like the scientific press (i.e. people who would love to be scientists but have to settle with reporting on it) to present scientists as idiots who don't know anything and need some rebel to come over and teach them the error of their ways, when the truth is that there is no other group of people on the planet who are so ready to change their mind when confronted with strong arguments, than scientists.
History is full of examples of the respectable insider consensus being dead wrong.
Phrenology was accepted and respectable opinion for a long time, and I imagine that ordinary people saw through it as much as they do now. Spontaneous generation of life was a serious theory for a while. Baron Kelvin was influentially wrong about the age of the earth. Phlogiston theory
was "respectable" opinion for a long time.
Besides: if you'd read the linked articles, you'd have understood that many people _within_ the profession agree with my perspective. They form a growing minority, and they come with very good evidence.
The past 50 years of anthropology really is shaping up to be another one of these instances in history in which science takes an unproductive detour on its way toward the truth. Granted, that's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. But in this case, we actually have that extraordinary evidence: ancient DNA.
